Academia.edu tells me the web page has found 25,450 papers on comparative mysticism written by academics in leading universities around the world.
I’ve downloaded and read three. If these are anything to go by, academia is merely pouring out papers on mysticism that are cannibalised from other works, some famous, some obscure, some historical, some newer – with conjecture and commentary thrown in using jargon presumably aimed at other academics who will be deciding the authors’ academic reputations/careers. (Is Dr David Chalmers’ plea for science and academia to jettison jargon falling on barren ground?).
Not all the conjecture and commentary is new or originally expressed, either. Nevertheless, the impression is given of a wider and growing scientific/academic acceptance of the phenomena and its main attributes. I don’t know if this is a good or relevant thing or not. My experience is that Reality, having given existence all it needs, isn’t much distracted by human wants.
None of the three papers I read claim any actual experience of the mystical experience of Reality, (MER).
Based on my multiple annual experiences of MER over 15 years or so I conjecture that those who have had MER are receivers of an outer, non biological ineffable experience, and are not mere generators of MER based on their human wishes, experiences, brains, minds, consciousnesses, or souls as some of these works suggest.
Where did and do these wild assertive imaginings come from?
I wholly agree on jargon. It is almost always unnecessary. Fools wear it as a badge of honour.
I read a few of those papers, but ignore most of them. Not all people who teach mysticism are mystics and not all mystics teach mysticism. Fortunately there have been some of do both.